Case In Point
Cleaner Reinstated Following Threat to Kill Supervisor
Date: August 5, 2026
In Servantage Services Corporation v Unifor Local 3000, Arbitrator Amanda Rogers reinstated a long-service cleaner following her discharge for making a death threat against her supervisor. The Arbitrator held that discharge was excessive because the employment relationship remained repairable given the cleaner’s long service and remorse and the absence of evidence of ongoing safety risk.
Background
The Grievor was a 60-year-old cleaner with 26 years of service whose first language was Punjabi and whose command of English was limited.
In July 2025, she received a verbal warning for approaching a co-worker about overtime distribution, contrary to her supervisor’s instructions. In December 2025, she received a written warning for, among other things, checking on a colleague; she refused to sign the form and left the building.
The next day, the employer resolved to impose a one-day suspension because the employee left work early and for her rudeness to the supervisor and security personnel on her way out. At the outset of the disciplinary meeting, the Grievor referred to her supervisor in Punjabi as the “fat-tummied man” or similar words and, after being told of the suspension, made a statement in Punjabi about wanting to kill him. The supervisor, who did not understand the Punjabi, learned of the threat only after the meeting, when a Punjabi-speaking colleague relayed it; he did not immediately report it to the employer.
Several days later, the employer met with the Grievor to terminate her employment, and she apologized for her remarks. Roughly two weeks later, after receiving her grievance, the employer reported the threat to the police; no charges were laid.
Union’s Position
At arbitration, the Union conceded that some discipline was warranted but characterized the Grievor’s conduct as an impulsive, emotional outburst in Punjabi that was not intended to intimidate, emphasizing that termination had been imposed without ever interviewing her about the threat.
Employer’s Position
The Employer submitted that the Grievor had made a death threat, that threats of workplace violence warrant severe discipline, and that any mitigating factors were outweighed by her escalating misconduct and lack of insight. It further relied on a zero-tolerance policy mandating discharge in such circumstances.
Arbitrator’s Award
In determining whether discharge should stand, Arbitrator Rogers deployed the framework for discipline cases relied on by arbitrators, which provides:
- the first question to be asked is whether there was just and reasonable cause for some discipline.
- the second is whether discharge was an excessive response in all of the circumstances; and, finally,
- where the arbitrator does consider the discipline excessive, they must determine what alternative measure should be substituted as just and equitable.
Because the Union had conceded cause for some discipline, the Arbitrator was left to determine whether discharge was excessive. Arbitrator Rogers concluded that it was, reinstating the Grievor and substituting a four-month unpaid suspension for the discharge, with the Grievor to be fully compensated for the period relating to the difference in discipline, approximately 2 months.
Arbitrator Rogers held that the employer’s “zero tolerance” approach to workplace violence did not displace her obligation to weigh all of the circumstances. Several mitigating factors weighed in the Grievor’s favor: 26 years of service with minimal prior discipline, no history of threats or violence, and her candid, remorseful acknowledgment of the threat rather than any attempt to conceal it. The threat itself was spontaneous and made in an emotionally charged setting, and its expression in Punjabi diminished both its intimidating effect and its seriousness. She was equally critical of the employer’s own response: on learning of the threat it took no immediate protective measures and delayed reporting the matter to the police until after the grievance was filed. Taken together, the Grievor’s long service and remorse and the absence of any ongoing safety risk left the employment relationship repairable.
Takeaways for Employers
- A “zero-tolerance” policy remains a valuable statement of expectations, but in a unionized setting employers should be prepared to show that discharge was assessed against the full circumstances, including the employee’s length of service, disciplinary record, and personal circumstances.
- Length of service and disciplinary history are central to the proportionality analysis, and arbitrators give considerable weight to an employee’s record and rehabilitative potential when assessing whether a penalty is proportionate.
- An employer’s contemporaneous response is treated as evidence of how seriously it, and the threatened employee, genuinely viewed a threat. A response that is disproportionate to the severity later asserted may weaken the case for summary dismissal.
- The fairness of the process attracts close scrutiny, so employers should conduct a meaningful investigation, interview the employee, and follow their own procedures before imposing the ultimate penalty.
- An employee’s candor and willingness to take responsibility are relevant to the proportionality analysis, and arbitrators may treat genuine insight differently from denial or minimization.
- Context matters, so employers should assess whether misconduct was a spontaneous reaction or reflected premeditation, repetition, or genuine intent when gauging its seriousness.
- Progressive discipline remains the arbitral touchstone, so even for serious misconduct employers should consider whether a substantial but lesser sanction can adequately address the conduct while preserving the employment relationship.
If you have any questions or require more information, please contact your Hicks Morley lawyer.
The article in this client update provides general information and should not be relied on as legal advice or opinion. This publication is copyrighted by Hicks Morley Hamilton Stewart Storie LLP and may not be photocopied or reproduced in any form, in whole or in part, without the express permission of Hicks Morley Hamilton Stewart Storie LLP. ©